Effect of dosage failed of first antiepileptic drug on subsequent outcome

Purpose: The recent definition of drug‐resistant epilepsy proposed by the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) stipulated failure of an adequate trial of two tolerated, appropriately chosen and used antiepileptic drug (AED) schedules to achieve seizure freedom. Doses failed were not specifically discussed. We explored the effect of the doses at which the first and second AED regimens failed on subsequent outcomes in a population of adults with newly diagnosed epilepsy followed for up to 20 years. Methods: Patients in whom epilepsy was diagnosed and the first AED prescribed between July 1, 1982 and April 1, 2006, were followed until March 31, 2008. Dosage at which an AED failed was categorized according to the World Health Organization’s defined daily dose (DDD) for each drug. Cumulative incidence curves for time to final seizure freedom (no seizure for at least 1 year on unchanged dosage at last follow up) were stratified by whether the first regimen was failed at doses above or below the 25%, 50%, or 75% cutoffs for the DDD of each AED. Key Findings: Among patients who had taken a second regimen (n = 327), those in whom the first AED failed at doses above the various cutoffs (particularly 50% and 75% DDD) had lower probability of becoming seizure‐free at last follow‐up (p = 0.06 for 25% DDD, p < 0.001 for both 50% and 75% DDD). The same difference was observed for patients who had taken a third regimen (n = 141; p = 0.23 for 25% DDD, p < 0.01 for 50% DDD; and p = 0.002 for 75% DDD). A trend to higher seizure‐free rate was observed in patients who had taken the third regimen when both the first and second regimens failed at <75% DDD. The difference remained significant after adjusting for covariates when using 50% DDD as the cutoff for patients who took a second regimen (hazard ratio 1.60, 95% confidence interval 1.08–2.37). Significance: Higher failure dosage of the first AED predicts poorer subsequent outcome. This methodology could be used to refine further the ILAE definition of drug‐resistant epilepsy by exploring the doses need to fail to provide an adequate AED trial.     

Innovative Designs of Controlled Clinical Trials in Epilepsy

Summary: Uncontrolled noncomparative clinical observations of investigational antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) often lead to overoptimistic efficacy results and are therefore of very limited value for clinical AED development. The classic add-on trial with placebo as control treatment, in contrast, has provided unequivocal evidence of the efficacy of classic and new AEDs and has also identified less useful AEDs. Drug interactions, carryover effects, difficulty in analyzing individual drug action, and the recognition that monotherapy is by far the more common way of prescribing AEDs have led to the development of classic active control monotherapy trials. A major problem of these trials is a no-difference outcome, which allows no useful interpretation. Recently, two alternative monotherapy designs have been developed to avoid the deadlock of a no-difference outcome. In these designs the active control drug is administered in an attenuated form (low dosage or low concentration) or a placebo control is used when standard treatment is discontinued during presurgical evaluation. Both designs have produced unequivocal evidence of the efficacy of the investigational AED during monotherapy. Ethical concerns are minimized by the introduction of preset escape criteria for patient protection. These designs are valuable new supplements for the clinical development of investigational AEDs for monotherapy in epilepsy. In our opinion, alternative monotherapy designs should be preceded by more than one pivotal add-on, placebo-controlled trial.     

Clinical Development Outlook of Oxcarbazepine

Summary: Oxcarbazepine (OCBZ) has been accepted for registration as a first-line antiepileptic drug (AED) in several countries. However, because of changing regulations, further studies confirming statistically significant proof of efficacy are necessary in accordance with new standards. Therefore, Ciba has initiated a worldwide clinical development program to achieve registration. Four different types of design to demonstrate statistically significant proof of efficacy in partial seizures will be initiated. These studies are a "classical" poly-therapy add-on study, a monotherapy substitution trial, a high-dose/low-dose active-control monotherapy study, and a study in presurgical patients.
Anticonvulsants     

Important Pharmacokinetic Properties of Antiepileptic Drugs

Summary: The choice of an antiepileptic drug (AED) is guided primarily by efficacy and safety criteria. However, the pharmacokinetic properties of an AED determine its ease of use, i.e., its ability to predictably produce and maintain optimal plasma concentrations. Desirable and clinically important pharmacokinetic properties of an AED include complete or constant bioavailability, slow enteral absorption or availability of a sustained-release formulation, availability of a parenteral formulation for acute treatment, rapid penetration into the brain, a single-compartment volume of distribution, low and nonsaturable protein binding, and linear elimination kinetics, with an elimination half-life of about 24 h. The absence of autoinduction of enzymatic biotransformation, active metabolites, and pharmacokinetic drug interactions is also important. In clinical practice, the most undesirable pharmacokinetic properties are lack of a parenteral formulation, short elimination half-life, nonlinear elimination kinetics, autoinduction of enzymatic biotransformation, and interaction with other drugs. No AED is presently marketed or under development that meets all of the desirable criteria. Some of the newer AEDs, although not "ideal" agents, have pharmacokinetic profiles that are not shared by their predecessors, including elimination exclusively by the kidney, absence of drug interactions, and dose-related bioavailability.     

Monotherapy trial design: conversion versus de novo.

It is difficult to design valid and well-controlled monotherapy trials that satisfy regulatory requirements and, at the same time, demonstrate the usefulness of a new drug in clinical practice. The conversion design is a drug-substitution trial in which patients with uncontrolled seizures are assigned to add-on treatment with an investigational drug and, usually, an appropriate control, after which pre-existing treatment is gradually discontinued. In the most utilised design, patients are randomised to receive a high dose versus low dose of the new drug, while concomitant medication is gradually discontinued. Exit criteria are predetermined to prevent excessive deterioration of seizures, and treatment retention time is used as the primary outcome variable to measure the effectiveness of the allocated treatments: the goal is to demonstrate higher retention rates in the high-dosage group. Conversion studies may help to fill some gaps in knowledge regarding efficacy and tolerability as monotherapy before larger-scale de-novo studies are started. In the de-novo design, newly diagnosed patients are randomised to receive the investigational drug or an active control. In equivalence (or non-inferiority) trials, the active control is usually an established antiepileptic drug (AED) such as carbamazepine or valproate, and outcome parameters may include proportion of patients achieving a predefined (for example, 6-month) seizure remission or the proportion of patients remaining in the trial (retention rate, a combined measure of efficacy and tolerability). In regulatory trials designed to show a difference, newly diagnosed patients are randomised to a high versus a low dose of the investigational drug, and exit criteria are again predetermined for patients whose seizures are not adequately controlled. In this case, outcome parameters may include time to first seizure in addition to retention in the trial. Comparative monotherapy trials in newly diagnosed patients are relevant to approximately 50% of the patients who develop epilepsy and can be satisfactorily managed with a single drug. These trials allow direct head-to-head comparisons and avoid the confounding effects of baseline drugs and co-medication withdrawal present in conversion studies. Long-term follow-up of patients who are receiving a drug in monotherapy at adequate doses gives the most clinically relevant answers regarding the usefulness of a new drug. It is concluded that the de-novo design is the gold standard when studying AEDs as monotherapy, but the conversion-to-monotherapy design can be used before starting the de-novo program in order to obtain estimates of efficacy and tolerability of the AED as monotherapy in a population of difficult-to-treat patients. With both designs, the use of suboptimal comparators incorporated into some of the regulatory trials is a cause of ethical concern.     

Reappraisal of Polytherapy in Epilepsy: A Critical Review of Drug Load and Adverse Effects

Summary: Purpose: We reviewed the literature to determine whether an analysis of published data could clarify the relationship between antiepileptic drug (AED) polytherapy and adverse affects (AE). We highlight the problems encountered. Methods: We made a Medline-search for articles published between 1974 and 1994 reporting the number of AE and doses or serum levels of every AED, per patient or treatment group, and used the PDD/DDD ratio to calculate AED load per patient from doses or the OSL/AToxL ratio to do so from serum levels of individual drugs. The PDD/DDD is the sum of ratios of the actual prescribed daily doses divided by the published average therapeutic dose of each drug. The OSL/AToxL is the sum of each observed serum level divided by its average toxic level. Results: We retrieved 118 trial reports. Most had to be excluded because of incomplete reporting of concomitant medication or AE. The data of the 15 articles selected for further analysis indicate a relationship between drug load and number of AE. We noted no relationship between the number of AEDs administered and AE. In add-on studies, the difference in neurotoxicity between the active and placebo arm may be obscured if the relative increase in drug load is small, as exemplified by the study of McGuire et al. (35). Conclusions: Articles reporting add-on trials of new AEDs generally do not provide detailed information about the basic medication to which the new AED is added, which makes calculation of total drug load impossible. Furthermore, often only frequency of AE is reported, not severity or development of tolerance, making it difficult to judge the impact of AE. However, despite the paucity of available information, we present some evidence that toxicity in AED polytherapy may be related to total drug load, rather than to the number of drugs administered. Therefore, the present trend to reject polytherapy for fear of increased toxicity is not warranted, which removes one of the objections to initiating specific research to prove or disprove the value of AED combinations as long as the drug load is appropriate.     

Conversions between monotherapies in epilepsy: expert consensus

To develop expert consensus for conversion between antiepileptic drug (AED) monotherapies, an 11-member panel used the Delphi Technique over three rounds to: (1) identify relevant issues, (2) vote on the issues, and (3) develop consensus. The panel agreed on the basic principle to taper the existing AED only after a presumably efficacious dose of the planned AED was reached. Application is modified by adverse effects possibly attributable to the existing drug, in which case earlier or more rapid tapering of the existing drug should be considered. Patients with uncontrolled seizures, as well as seizure-free patients for whom driving privileges are a consideration, may benefit from slower tapering by smaller dosage decrements of the existing AED. For 10 of the 12 AEDs considered, the panel made titration recommendations concerning initial and target doses for the planned AED, supplementing limited data in the prescribing information. This expert guidance will aid in the period of transitional polytherapy with AEDs from monotherapy to monotherapy.     

Monotherapy trials: prerequisite data.

Is it possible for an antiepileptic drug (AED) to be effective as add-on therapy in refractory epilepsy but ineffective as monotherapy for the same seizure type(s)? If the answer is 'no', why not award a new AED a monotherapy licence once it has been shown to be effective as adjunctive treatment in placebo controlled, dose-ranging studies in patients with difficult-to-control epilepsy? The recent comparative study between carbamazepine and remacemide, however, suggests that subtle pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic interactions between established and new AEDs can indicate efficacy in add-on studies that does not necessarily transfer to monotherapy. There is some evidence that an AED whose primary mechanism of action does not involve blockade of voltage-dependent sodium channels may do less well than carbamazepine in terms of efficacy end-points in a double-blind, head-to-head comparison. These observations lead to the conclusion that monotherapy trials are, indeed, required. They should be undertaken after proof of efficacy has been obtained using a single short presurgical AED withdrawal study backed up by a substantive dose-ranging phase III efficacy trial. There is no reason to recommend earlier assessment since the clinical need for new AEDs is in refractory epilepsy. The subsequent monotherapy trial programme should contain elements utilising comparative and withdrawal designs. Sponsors should be able to seek a licence for their drug either as a first choice treatment in newly diagnosed epilepsy or as substitution monotherapy once treatment with at least one other AED has failed.     

Epilepsy – success in clinical practice: translating trials to practice

Success in clinical practice results from the combination of a clinician's experience, an understanding of patient preferences and factors that influence patient perceptions, and careful interpretation of data from clinical trials. However, successful clinical trials fulfil rigid methodological requirements in order to provide a basis from which to evaluate the place of a drug within a therapeutic strategy. Their translation into practice is therefore complicated by an intrinsic tension between the requirements for scientific methods that minimize error, and the need for clinically relevant data. In practice, the clinician has the flexibility to individualize epilepsy management to maximize benefits and minimize adverse effects of antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy. AED adverse effects and psychiatric comorbidity, in particular depression, have a profound impact on subjective health status; systematic screening for these confounding variables can guide clinical management and optimize quality of life. In addition, patient preferences can be acknowledged in any management plan. To achieve success in clinical practice, we need to remember that the information gleaned from clinical trials provides only part of the picture and needs to be augmented by our clinical experience, patient assessment (including routine screening for adverse effects and depression) and patient preference.     

Tiagabine: A Novel Drug with a GABAergic Mechanism of Action

Summary: The various possibilities for manipulating the γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) system to augment GABAergic inhibition have been surveyed with reference to the relevant antiepileptic compounds that have been successfully or unsuccessfully investigated in relation to these different mechanisms of action. The first clinical studies of tiagabine (TGB), a novel GABA-uptake inhibitor are now available. These studies utilized a novel design, the enrichment (Amery) design, which is put into perspective compared to classical clinical trial designs. Possible advantages and disadvantages of TGB, as seen at this stage in development, have been identified.     

Lamotrigine Therapy for Partial Seizures: A Multicenter, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Cross-Over Trial

Summary: The efficacy and safety of lamotrigine (LTG), a new antiepileptic drug (AED), were evaluated in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study of 98 patients with refractory partial seizures. Each treatment period lasted 14 weeks. Most patients were titrated to a LTG maintenance dose of 400 mglday. Seizure frequency with LTG decreased by ≥50%, as compared with placebo, in one fifth of patients. Overall median seizure frequency decreased by 25% with LTG as compared with placebo (p < 0.001). With LTG, the number of seizure days decreased by 18% as compared with placebo (p < 0.01), and investigator global evaluation of overall patient clinical status favored LTG by 2: 1 (p = 0.013). Plasma LTG concentrations appeared to be linearly related to dosage. LTG had no clinically important effects on the plasma concentrations of concomitant AEds. Adverse experiences were generally minor and most frequently were CNS-related (e.g., ataxia, dizziness, diplopia, headache). Most were transient and resolved without discontinuing treatment. Five patients withdrew as a result of adverse experiences while receiving LTG, including 3 patients with rash. One placebo patient was also withdrawn because of rash. The addition of twice-daily LTG to an existing AED regimen was safe, effective, and well tolerated in these medically refractory partial seizure patients.     

Levetiracetam,a new antiepileptic agent: lack of in vitro and in vivo pharmacokinetic interaction with valproic acid

PURPOSE: The novel antiepileptic drug (AED) levetiracetam (LEV; Keppra) has a wide therapeutic index and pharmacokinetic characteristics predicting limited drug-interaction potential. It is indicated as an add-on treatment in patients with epilepsy, and thus coadministration with valproic acid (VPA) is likely. These studies were performed to determine whether coadministration of LEV with VPA might result in pharmacokinetic interactions. METHODS: In vitro assays were performed to characterize the transformation of LEV into its main in vivo metabolite UCB L057. The reaction was examined for its sensitivity to clinically relevant concentrations of VPA. An open-label, one-way, one-sequence crossover clinical trial was conducted in 16 healthy volunteers to assess further the possibility of any relevant pharmacokinetic interaction. RESULTS: Human whole blood and, to a lesser extent, human liver homogenates were demonstrated to hydrolyze LEV to UCB L057, its main metabolite. The reaction possibly involves type-B esterases and is not affected by 1 mM VPA (i.e., 166 microg/ml). Pharmacokinetic parameters of a single dose of LEV (1,500 mg) coadministered with steady-state concentrations of VPA (8 days of 500 mg, b.i.d.) did not differ significantly from the pharmacokinetics of LEV administered alone [area under the curve (AUC) of 397 and 400 microg/h/ml, respectively]. Furthermore, LEV did not affect the steady-state pharmacokinetics of VPA. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest the absence of a pharmacokinetic interaction between VPA and LEV during short-term administration, and suggest that dose adjustment is not required when these two drugs are given together.     

International Experience with Tiagabine Add-On Therapy

Summary: Tiagabine (TGB) hydrochloride is a novel antiepileptic drug (AED) that is a potent and specific inhibitor of γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) uptake into glial and neuronal elements. In accordance with medical and regulatory standards, the clinical development program for TGB as an AED has assessed the value of TGB in add-on treatment, focusing mainly on partial seizures, including secondarily generalized seizures. Five add-on, placebo-controlled trials and six non-comparative, open-label, long-term multicenter trials have been or are being conducted in Australia, Europe, and the U.S.A. The results of these trials, involving 2,261 patients, indicate that TGB has efficacy as add-on therapy in patients with epilepsy difficult to control with existing AEDs. Efficacy of TGB is also sustained with long-term treatment. A clear dose-response has been demonstrated, and the minimal effective dose level is 30 mg. TGB is also tolerated, and with long-term therapy no new or more severe types of adverse events develop. These studies have included a wide age range of patients, including adolescents and the elderly.     

Seizure Severity and the Quality of Life

Summary: The efficacy of an antiepileptic drug (AED) is determined at present by the drug-elicited reduction in seizure frequency. Reduction of seizure frequency as the sole measure of efficacy does not account for treatment-induced reductions in seizure severity and positive psychological effects experienced by the patient. A clinical trial was undertaken in which seizure frequency was the primary and seizure severity and psychological well-being were the secondary measures of efficacy. Psychological assessment and seizure frequency were monitored in patients whose epilepsy was treated with lamotrigine (LTG) or placebo. The results indicate that LTG is an effective AED, causing reductions in seizure frequency and severity and improvements in mood and mastery. In addition, the study demonstrated that the use of seizure severity scales, especially the Ictal subscale, may enhance the sensitivity of assessment of trials of AED treatments.     

Effect of Felbamate on Plasma Levels of Carbamazepine and Its Metabolites

Felbamate (FBM) is a novel antiepileptic drug (AED) currently undergoing clinical evaluation in the United States. During a controlled clinical trial conducted at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, FBM was added to constant carbamazepine (CBZ) monotherapy. CBZ total concentrations were reduced during active FBM treatment (mean reduction 25%, range 10-42%, p less than 0.001). The effect was evident after the first week of treatment and reached a plateau in 2-4 weeks. To clarify the interaction mechanism, free and total concentrations of CBZ and its plasma metabolites were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and ultrafiltration in four patients. In these patients, FBM treatment reduced CBZ concentrations and increased CBZ-epoxide (CBZ-E) concentrations (p less than 0.01). Free fractions of all compounds were unmodified. FBM appears to be capable of inducing CBZ metabolism. CBZ-FBM interaction may be clinically relevant.     

Cognitive and behavioural assessment in clinical trials: when should they be done?

The issue of 'timing' of behavioural assessments in clinical trials can be approached in two different ways. Firstly the 'timing' during the process of drug development. As a rule, cognitive and behavioural side effects of antiepileptic drug treatment do not become an issue until the drug is marketed. At this stage a negative result has large marketing effects and this leads to a tendency to organise 'positive studies'('no-effect results'), that can be achieved by reducing power. A second approach is the 'timing' of cognitive assessment during a trial. The first and intuitive answer to the question 'when this should be done' is to perform assessments during an untreated baseline that is then compared with an endpoint during antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment. This is the 'gold standard design' for cognitive assessments in the majority of the cognitive trials. However, in patients with epilepsy, the behavioural drug effects are not independent from the effect of the epilepsy or the seizures. Recent studies have confirmed that the effect of uncontrolled seizures are often larger than the effects of drug treatment, leading to the so-called seizure confound, that is, adverse cognitive AED effects may be masked by beneficial effects of better seizure control. In such studies endpoint scores are thus improved, hiding possible negative drug effects. Other designs may have other limitations: e.g. in using adjunctive therapy the identification of the components of a treatment most responsible for any observed effects presents a difficult problem; in normal volunteers, exposure durations which are not representative of those in epilepsy patients on chronic treatment represent a major validity issue. We therefore consider the drug withdrawal study as the optimal design for assessing behavioural drug effects. In this design subjects are tested while still on medication and after withdrawal; larger gains in the epilepsy group relative to the controls are considered evidence for a reversible impairment, attributable to AED use.     

The Effect of Age on Pharmacokinetics of Antiepileptic Drugs

Summary: Management of epilepsy in the elderly requires understanding of the unique biochemical and pharmacologic characteristics of this patient population. Accurate assessment of seizures and identification of epilepsy syndromes, thorough neurologic assessment to define etiology, and comprehensive evaluation of the patient's health and living situation are necessary for informed management decisions. Challenges to treatment include concomitant diseases, polypharmacy with accompanying drug interactions, and changes in physiology, such as changes in renal clearance and hepatic function that alter drug absorption, protein binding, metabolism, and elimination. Elderly patients with declining intellectual function, motor impairment, or altered sensory function may be especially susceptible to dose-related CNS side effects of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Drugs pre-scribed for concomitant illnesses such as hypertension, cardiovascular disease, infections, behavioral problems, and gastrointestinal disturbances may alter absorption, distribution, and metabolism of AEDs, with an adverse impact on efficacy and increased occurrence of adverse effects. The AEDs may induce metabolism of other drugs, resulting in decline in target response. Addition of an AED to an elderly patient's medical regimen requires careful review of all prescribed drugs. Optimal care of elderly patients with epilepsy includes use of free drug levels to monitor AED concentrations, careful dose selection, and sensitivity to the social problems that may occur in this population.     

Nonadherence to treatment regimens in epilepsy from the patient's perspective and predisposing factors: Differences between intentional and unintentional lack of adherence

Nonadherence to recommended antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment regimens can result in seizure relapse with increased health risks. Nonadherence can be unintentional (eg, patients forget to take a dose), or intentional, when patients consciously decide not to follow the agreed AED treatment regimen. We aimed to determine the extent to which Norwegian patients with epilepsy (PWEs) report taking their AED differently from prescribed, either intentionally or unintentionally, and to identify risk factors for either form of nonadherence. Of 1182 PWEs who completed an online survey presented on the website of the Norwegian Epilepsy Association, 40% reported that they sometimes or often forget to take their AED as scheduled, and about 30% reported that they consciously chose not to follow the AED treatment plan agreed upon with their physician. Independent variables significantly associated with unintentional nonadherence include the following: feeling depressed, being younger than the mean age, and having memory problems. Independent factors significantly associated with intentional nonadherence include the following: feeling depressed, male gender, and perceptions of stigmatization. To improve the treatment of PWEs, it is important to distinguish between intentional and unintentional nonadherence to AED treatment regimens, as different risk factors and reasons associated with nonadherence to AED treatment regimens might require different interventions.     

Selection of antiepileptic drug polytherapy based on mechanisms of action: the evidence reviewed

PURPOSE: When monotherapy with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) fails, combination therapy is tried in an attempt to improve effectiveness by improving efficacy, tolerability, or both. We reviewed the available studies (both animal and human) on AED polytherapy to determine whether AEDs can be selected for combination therapy based on their mechanisms of action, and if so, which combinations are associated with increased effectiveness. Because various designs and methods of analysis were used in these studies, it was also necessary to evaluate the appropriateness of these approaches. METHODS: Published papers reporting on AED polytherapy in animals or humans were identified by Medline search and by checking references cited in these papers. RESULTS: Thirty-nine papers were identified reporting on two-drug AED combinations. Several combinations were reported to offer improved effectiveness, but no uniform approach was used in either animal or human studies for the evaluation of pharmacodynamic drug interactions; efficacy was often the only end point. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that AED polytherapy based on mechanisms of action may enhance effectiveness. In particular, combining a sodium channel blocker with a drug enhancing GABAergic inhibition appears to be advantageous. Combining two GABA mimetic drugs or combining an AMPA antagonist with an NMDA antagonist may enhance efficacy, but tolerability is sometimes reduced. Combining two sodium channel blockers seems less promising. However, given the incomplete knowledge of the pathophysiology of seizures and indeed of the exact mechanisms of action of AEDs, an empirical but rational approach for evaluating AED combinations is of fundamental importance. This would involve appropriate testing of all possible combinations in animal models and subsequent evaluation of advantageous combinations in clinical trials. Testing procedures in animals should include the isobologram method, and the concept of drug load should be the basis of studies in patients with epilepsy.